Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55319 

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104–113, section 

12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note). Since 

tolerances and exemptions that are 

established on the basis of a petition 

under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as 

the tolerance in this final rule, do not 

require the issuance of a proposed rule, 

the requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 

seq.) do not apply. In addition, the 

Agency has determined that this action 

will not have a substantial direct effect 

on States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). Executive Order 13132 requires 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ This final rule 

directly regulates growers, food 

processors, food handlers and food 

retailers, not States. This action does not 

alter the relationships or distribution of 

power and responsibilities established 

by Congress in the preemption 

provisions of section 408(n)(4) of 

FFDCA. For these same reasons, the 

Agency has determined that this rule 

does not have any ‘‘tribal implications’’

as described in Executive Order 13175, 

entitled Consultation and Coordination 

with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000). Executive 

Order 13175, requires EPA to develop 

an accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal 

officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

rule will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

VII. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of this final 

rule in the Federal Register. This final 

rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 

5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Agricultural commodities, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 14, 2006. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

■ Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Section 180.555 is amended by 

alphabetically adding commodities to 

the table in paragraph (a) to read as 

follows: 

§ 180.555 Trifloxystrobin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

*****

Soybean, forage ....................... 10.0 

Soybean, hay ............................ 25.0 

Soybean, seed .......................... 0.08 

*****

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–8060 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–

0009; FRL–8221–6] 

National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan; National Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct Final Notice of Deletion 

of the Army Materials Technology 

Laboratory Superfund Site from the 

National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: EPA Region 1 is publishing a 

direct final notice of deletion of the 

Army Materials Technology Laboratory 

Superfund Site (Site), located in 

Watertown, Massachusetts, from the 

National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which 

is the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP). EPA is publishing this direct 

final notice of deletion with the 

concurrence of the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, through the Department 

of Environmental Protection (MADEP), 

because EPA determined that all 

appropriate response actions under 

CERCLA—other than operation and 

maintenance and five-year reviews—

have been completed and further 

remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is 

not appropriate. 

DATES: This direct final deletion will be 

effective November 21, 2006 unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by October 

23, 2006. If adverse comments are 

received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final deletion 

in the Federal Register informing the 

public that the deletion will not take 

effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

SFUND–1994–0009, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instruction for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: keckler.kymberlee@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (617) 918–0385. 

• Mail: Kymberlee Keckler, Remedial 

Project Manager, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 1, 1 Congress 

Street, Suite 1100 (HBT), Boston, 

Massachusetts 02114–2023. 

• Hand delivery: 1 Congress Street, 

Suite 1100 (HBT), Boston, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_1
55320 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Massachusetts 02114–2023. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1994–

0009. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

that you submit. If EPA cannot read 

your comment because of technical 

difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, EPA may not be able to 

consider your comment. Electronic files 

should avoid the use of special 

characters, any form of encryption, and 

be free of any defects or viruses. 

Information Repository: All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically at www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 1, Superfund 

Records Center, 1 Congress Street, Suite 

1100, Boston, Massachusetts 02114–

2023 and at the Watertown Free Public 

Library, 123 Main Street, Watertown, 

MA 02472. The EPA Superfund Records 

Center is open Monday through Friday 

from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the Watertown 

Free Library is open Monday through 

Thursday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Friday 

and Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and 

Sunday from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The EPA 

Superfund Records Center’s telephone 

number is (617) 918–1440 and the 

Watertown Free Library’s telephone 

number is (617) 972–6431. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kymberlee Keckler, Remedial Project 

Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 

(HBT), Boston, Massachusetts 02114–

2023, (617) 918–1385, Fax (617) 918–

0385, E-mail: 

keckler.kymberlee@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA, Region 1, is publishing this 

direct final notice of deletion of the 

Army Materials Technology Laboratory 

Superfund Site from the NPL. 

The EPA identifies sites that appear to 

present a significant risk to public 

health or the environment and 

maintains the NPL as the list of those 

sites. As described in 40 CFR 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted 

from the NPL remain eligible for 

remedial actions if conditions at a 

deleted site warrant such actions. 

EPA is taking this action without 

prior publication of a notice of intent to 

delete because it considers this action to 

be non-controversial and routine. This 

action will be effective November 21, 

2006 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by October 23, 2006 on this 

notice or the parallel notice of intent to 

delete published in the Proposed Rules 

section of today’s Federal Register. If 

adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period on 

this direct final notice of deletion, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final notice of deletion before the 

effective date of the deletion and the 

deletion will not take effect. EPA will, 

as appropriate, prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

not be an additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses the 

procedures that EPA is using for this 

action. Section IV discusses the Army 

Materials Technology Laboratory 

Superfund Site and demonstrates how it 

meets the deletion criteria. Section V 

discusses EPA’s intent to delete the site 

from the NPL unless adverse comments 

are received during the public comment 

period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP 

provides that releases may be deleted 

from the NPL where no further response 

is appropriate. In making a 

determination to delete a release from 

the NPL, EPA shall consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

(i) Responsible parties or other 

persons have implemented all 

appropriate response actions required; 

(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed 

(Hazardous Substance Superfund 

Response Trust Fund) response under 

CERCLA has been implemented, and no 

further response action by responsible 

parties is appropriate; or 

(iii) The remedial investigation (RI) 

has shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, taking of 

remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at the deleted 

site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure, CERCLA section 121(c), 42 

U.S.C. 9621(c) requires that a 

subsequent review of the site will be 

conducted at least every five years after 

the initiation of the remedial action at 

the deleted site to ensure that the 

actions remain protective of public 

health and the environment. In the case 

of this Site, a five-year review is 

necessary because not all hazardous 

substances, pollutants, and 

contaminants have been removed from 

the Site. If new information becomes 

available that indicates a need for 

further action, EPA may initiate 

remedial actions. Whenever there is a 

significant release from a site deleted 

from the NPL, the deleted site may be 

restored to the NPL without the 

application of the hazard ranking 

system. 

In the case of the Army Materials 

Technology Laboratory, the selected 

remedies are protective of human health 

and the environment. The Army will 

maintain the institutional controls and 

will perform annual inspections. The 

first five-year review was conducted by 

EPA, the MADEP, and the Army in 

January 2002. The second five-year 

review was completed in March 2006. 

Copies are located at the repository 

noted previously. The remedies were 

deemed protective. Reviews will be 

conducted every five years hereafter. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55321 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of the Site: 

(1) EPA consulted with the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the 

deletion of the Site from the NPL before 

developing this direct final notice of 

deletion. 

(2) The Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts concurred with the 

deletion of the Site from the NPL on 

September 8, 2006. 

(3) Concomitantly with the 

publication of this direct final notice of 

deletion, a notice of the availability of 

the notice of intent to delete the Site 

from the NPL will be published in a 

major local newspaper of general 

circulation at or near the Site and will 

be distributed to appropriate federal, 

state and local government officials and 

other interested parties. The newspaper 

notice announces the 30-day public 

comment period concerning the notice 

of intent to delete the Site from the NPL. 

(4) EPA and the Army placed copies 

of the documents supporting the 

deletion in the Site information 

repositories identified above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this notice or the companion 

notice of intent to delete also published 

in today’s Federal Register, EPA will 

withdraw this direct final notice of 

deletion before its effective date and 

will respond to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does 

not itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

in any way alter EPA’s right to take 

enforcement actions, as appropriate. 

The NPL is designed primarily for 

informational purposes and to assist 

EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) 

of the NCP states that the deletion of a 

site from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for future response actions, 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

The following information provides 

EPA’s rationale for deleting the Site 

from the NPL: 

Site Location 

The Army Materials Technology 

Laboratory (Site) lies in Middlesex 

County, Massachusetts, 6 miles 

northwest of Boston, and occupies 

approximately 48 acres within the town 

of Watertown, MA. The surrounding 

city population is approximately 34,000. 

Developed land adjacent to the Site is a 

mix of residential and commercial uses. 

The Site borders the Charles River to the 

south. 

Site Background and History 

The AMTL facility was established in 

1816 and was originally used for the 

storage, cleaning, repair, and issuance of 

small arms. During the mid-1800s, the 

mission was expanded to include 

ammunition and pyrotechnics 

production; materials testing and 

experimentation with paints, lubricants, 

and cartridges; and the manufacture of 

breech loading steel guns and cartridges 

for field and siege guns. The mission, 

staff, and facilities continued to expand 

until after World War II, at which time 

the facility encompassed 131 acres, 

including 53 buildings and structures, 

and employed 10,000 people. Arms 

manufacturing continued until an 

operational phasedown was initiated in 

1967 and much of the property was 

transferred to the General Services 

Administration (GSA). In 1968, GSA 

sold approximately 55 acres to the 

Town of Watertown. This property was 

subsequently used for the construction 

of apartment buildings, the Arsenal 

Mall, a public park, and a playground. 

AMTL contained fifteen major buildings 

and fifteen associated structures. In 

1960, the Army’s first material research 

nuclear reactor was completed at 

AMTL. The reactor was used actively in 

molecular and atomic structure research 

activities until 1970 when it was 

deactivated. The research reactor was 

decommissioned under the jurisdiction 

of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

in 1992 and the structure was 

demolished in 1994. In 1987, the U.S. 

Army Toxic and Hazardous Material 

Agency initiated preliminary site 

studies, the first stage of the facility’s 

closure plan. In late 1993, Congress 

recommended the closure of the facility. 

On September 29, 1995, AMTL was 

officially closed and reverted to a 

caretaker status. 

The AMTL was placed on the EPA 

National Priorities List (NPL) as a 

Superfund Site in May 1994 and in 1995 

the Army signed an Interagency 

Agreement with the EPA stipulating that 

site investigations and cleanup actions 

would follow CERCLA/Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act, 

under the regulatory guidance of the 

National Contingency Plan 40 CFR part 

300. A Technical Review Committee 

was formed at the time that has 

subsequently become the Restoration 

Advisory Board. In 1994, AMTL was 

placed on the Base Realignment and 

Closure list. 

In August 1998, 36.5 acres of the 48- 

acre CERCLA site were transferred from 

the ownership of the U.S. Army. At that 

time, the Watertown Arsenal 

Development Corporation (WADC) 

acquired 29.44 acres of the Site. The 

Town of Watertown took ownership of 

7.21 acres. In March 2005, the 

remaining 11 acres of the Site were 

transferred to the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, Department of 

Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The 

DCR was formed in 2003, when the 

Metropolitan District Commission, or 

‘‘MDC’’ merged with the Massachusetts 

Department of Environmental 

Management, or ‘‘DEM.’’ As set forth 

below, the MDC has managed a portion 

of the site since the 1920s. At the time 

of each transfer, the United States of 

America, acting by and through the 

Secretary of the Army, granted the 

MADEP a Grant of Environmental 

Restriction and Easement for each 

appropriate zone of the AMTL Site. The 

purpose of the grant is to provide a 

mechanism for the creation and 

enforcement of the necessary land use 

controls as required by the CERCLA 

Records of Decision (RODs) for the Site 

(September and July 1996). The first 

grant re-designated areas into lots for 

property transfer and future deed 

tracking. Environmental Zones 1, 2, and 

3 (the parcel initially transferred to 

WADC) were designated as Lot 1. Lot 1 

was sold to Charles River Business 

Center Associates (CRBCA) in December 

1998. CRBCA sold the Lot 1 property to 

the President and Fellows of Harvard 

College (Harvard) in May 2001. 

Environmental Zone 4 (the parcel 

transferred to the Town of Watertown) 

was designated as Lot 2. Zones 1, 2, 3, 

and 4 were deleted from the NPL 

through the partial deletion process on 

November 22, 1999. 

Zone 5, the Charles River Park, is the 

subject of the second grant. Although 

this park was AMTL property, it was 

managed by the MDC since the 1920’s 

under a lease from the Army. Since 

then, the land has been maintained as 

open and recreational space. In 1948, 

the MDC leased approximately two 

acres of the riverfront property to the 

Watertown Yacht Club. 

Because of the complexity of this 

industrial facility, the Site was divided 

into three areas for investigation. EPA 

designated these three areas as operable 

units. The operable units are described 

in detail below. 

OU1—Outdoor Areas 

Operable unit 1 (OU1) addresses most 

outdoor soils and all underlying 

groundwater. The indoor areas and 

petroleum related cleanups are 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_1
55322 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

addressed under the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts cleanup authority. 

Environment Zones 1–5 (Areas A, B, C, 

D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, T, 

and metal hot spots) are all included in 

the OU1 ROD. These areas exceeded 

expected future use and/or ecological 

risk levels for metals, polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and 

pesticides. The ROD required soil 

excavation and off-site disposal/reuse of 

contaminated soils exceeding cleanup 

goals and was signed on September 26, 

1996. The ROD for OU1 also 

documented that no further action was 

necessary under CERCLA for the 

groundwater at the entire AMTL site. 

Two Explanations of Significant 

Differences (ESD) have been signed for 

OU1. The first ESD addressed Lot 1 and 

was signed on January 12, 1998. The 

second ESD addressed the Charles River 

Park and was signed on June 7, 2001. 

The ESDs changed the subsurface PAH 

cleanup levels to levels protective of 

construction workers. The first ESD 

revised PAH cleanup goals were applied 

at Areas B, E, G, and L4. These cleanup 

goals were also applied to the Charles 

River Park (Zone 5: Areas M, N, O, P, 

and Q) as part of the second ESD. 

OU2—Charles River 

OU2 encompasses approximately two 

miles of the Charles River adjacent to 

the AMTL property. This area of the 

river has received contaminants from 

the AMTL site via storm drainage, direct 

discharges, and erosion. The ROD for 

this operable unit documented that no 

further action was necessary under 

CERCLA for these sediments because 

the contaminants are present at levels 

that are indistinguishable from the 

concentrations associated with exposure 

to urban background conditions in the 

Lower Charles River Basin. The OU2 

ROD was signed on September 29, 2005. 

OU3—Area I 

Area I is located northeast of Building 

131 at the intersection of Talcott Street 

and Kingsbury Avenue (Zone 3). The 

ROD for OU3 was signed before the OU1 

ROD for residential cleanup of soils 

contaminated with PAHs and pesticides 

above cleanup levels. This area was 

segregated from OU1 to enable faster 

redevelopment. The OU3 ROD was 

signed on June 28, 1996. 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

(RI/FS) Results and Record of Decision 

(ROD) Findings for Operable Units 1 

and 3 

OUs 1 and 3—RI/FS Results 

Remedial Investigations of these two 

operable units were conducted between 

1987 and 1995 and generally found the 

following contamination across the 

facility. 

Groundwater: With the exception of 

one well, all upgradient wells showed 

detectable quantities of chlorinated 

solvents, suggesting that off-site sources 

have caused or aggravated on-site 

groundwater contamination. Based on a 

site water table map, groundwater flow 

paths indicate the potential for 

groundwater to flow away from the site 

in an area in the northwestern part of 

the site before flowing toward the 

Charles River. No evidence of on-site 

contamination migrating off-site was 

found in groundwater samples collected 

from on-site wells because the majority 

of contamination was detected in the 

upgradient wells. The on-site, and 

farthest downgradient, wells bordering 

the Charles River showed the lowest 

levels of contamination. Although some 

contamination is present in certain areas 

of on-site groundwater, this does not 

pose a current or future risk because the 

groundwater is not used as a water 

supply, and no significant migration of 

contamination is occurring. The site 

groundwater meets the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts definition of a nondrinking water aquifer (GW–3) as 

defined in 310 C.M.R. Part 40. 

Therefore, there is no risk to human 

receptors. Groundwater does discharge 

from the site into the Charles River. A 

model of contaminant contribution via 

groundwater to the Charles River was 

developed. This model, as presented in 

the FS, shows that no significant 

concentrations of contaminants are 

migrating to the river from the site 

groundwater. Hence, there is no risk to 

human health or the environment from 

site groundwater and no further action 

was documented in the OU1 ROD for all 

groundwater across the AMTL facility. 

Surface soils: Semi-volatiles, 

pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls 

(PCBs), and metals were detected at 

levels exceeding the Massachusetts 

Contingency Plan (MCP) S–1/GW–1 

standards (the most protective). These 

detections were scattered and in hot 

spots, as opposed to site-wide 

distribution. PCBs were detected at 

levels above the EPA action level. The 

analytical results showed that the total 

uranium activity in all soils was below 

the Federal maximum allowable 

standards. 

Sub-surface soils: Volatile organics, 

semi-volatile organics, polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), 

pesticides, and metals were found at 

many sampling locations above MCP S–

1/GW–1 standards. 

Surface water and sediments: Surface 

water contained arsenic and lead 

exceeding human health Ambient Water 

Quality Standards. Sediments were 

contaminated with low levels of metals 

and pesticides above sediment 

screening values. 

A summary of the contaminants of 

concern for soil and the corresponding 

cleanup levels follows: 

Soil contaminant of concern 

Maximum 

concentration 

(mg/kg) 

ROD cleanup 

level (mg/kg) 

(surface and 

subsurface 

soils) 

ESD cleanup level 

(mg/kg) 

(subsurface 

soils only) 

Zone where 

cleanup level 

pertains** 

Benzo(a)anthracene ................................................................................................. 32.0 8 .5 1760.0 2, 3, 4 & CRP. 

Benzo(a)pyrene ........................................................................................................ 37.0 2 .0 154.0 2, 3, 4 & CRP. 

Benzo(b)fluoranthene ............................................................................................... 15.0 7 .9 1760.0 2, 3, 4 & CRP. 

Benzo(k)fluoranthene ............................................................................................... 24.0 6 .2 17600.0 2, 3, 4 & CRP. 

Chlordane ................................................................................................................. 9.4 1.4* .................... 4 & CRP. 

Chrysene .................................................................................................................. 34.0 11 .1 176000.0 3, 4 & CRP. 

DDD .......................................................................................................................... 3.5 13 .7 .................... 4 & CRP. 

DDE .......................................................................................................................... 6.3 0 .14 .................... 4 & CRP. 

DDT .......................................................................................................................... 5.2 0 .17 .................... 4 & CRP. 

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene ........................................................................................... 3.3 0 .27 154.0 3 & CRP. 

Dieldrin ...................................................................................................................... 4.0 0 .35 .................... 4 & CRP. 

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene ............................................................................................ 14.0 3 .0 1760.0 2, 3, 4 & CRP. 

Arochlor 1260 (PCB) ................................................................................................ 4.9 1 .0 .................... 3 & 4. 

*Cleanup goal for chlordane in Zone 3 was 1.5 mg/kg based on human health risk. 

**No cleanup goals were developed in the ROD for Zone 1. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55323 

Human health risks for both OU1 and 

OU3 were evaluated for current use and 

for future use. The future use included 

a residential scenario, which is the most 

protective assessment for human health. 

Risks were unacceptably high under the 

residential conditions (maximum cancer 

risks 3E–05 and maximum Hazard Index 

0.4) and therefore remediation was 

required. Some areas were remediated 

to commercial risk levels and required 

a Grant of Environmental Restriction. 

Ecological risk scenarios include 

exposure to site groundwater in the 

Charles River and exposure to site soils 

in the limited open space areas. 

Although contaminants in groundwater 

could migrate toward the Charles River, 

the level of contamination is not 

expected to adversely affect aquatic 

organisms. Most of the AMTL Site is not 

prime terrestrial habitat owing to the 

lack of open space. Suitable habitat for 

terrestrial vegetation and wildlife is 

restricted to the southeastern corner of 

the site. Major risk drivers were metals 

and pesticides. Receptors evaluated in 

the risk assessment with unacceptable 

hazard indices were: Northern shorttailed shrew, white-footed mouse, 

American robin, song sparrow, and 

earthworms. Cleanup goals were not 

determined for metals because on-site 

metals were found to be generally 

consistent with normal background 

levels. Any areas with metals 

contamination posing an unacceptable 

localized risk were co-located with 

pesticides and remediated. 

OU2–RI Results 

Various investigations were 

performed between 1979 and 2005. In 

1979, the Army completed a study to 

verify where storm water pipes were 

located and identified seven storm 

water pipes at AMTL that discharged 

either directly or through the storm 

water system into the Charles River. In 

1994, 1998, and 2003 surface water and 

sediment samples were taken upstream 

and downstream of the outfalls. The 

2003 sampling event also included 

biological and toxicological studies of 

the river conditions. The Charles River 

was divided into four reaches for the 

purposes of evaluation in the baseline 

ecological risk assessment. 

There are numerous existing and 

historical sources of pollutants to the 

Charles River, an urban riverine system. 

Chemicals detected in surface water at 

the Charles River OU were found at low 

concentrations that were either below 

human health based risk screening 

levels, consistent with upstream 

background conditions, or 

indistinguishable from the urban 

background conditions of the Charles 

River. 

Sediments were found to be 

contaminated by PAHs, inorganics, low 

levels of pesticides and PCBs, and 

extremely low levels of several 

radionuclides. 

Potential human receptors included 

the people engaging in water-related 

activities along and on the river or 

eating fish caught from the river. These 

activities were considered for resident 

adults and children and park visitors. 

Based on the nature of contamination 

and anticipated activities, the exposure 

routes evaluated for this portion of the 

Charles River included: 

—Ingestion and dermal contact with 

river water and sediments; 

—Ingestion of contaminated fish; and 

—External exposure to radiation 

released from radionuclides in 

sediments. 

An advisory concerning the 

consumption of fish was issued by 

MDPH in 1996 for the Lower Basin of 

the Charles River owing to elevated 

PCBs. 

Results of the HHRA revealed that all 

cancer and non-cancer risk levels were 

within the acceptable thresholds 

specified in the National Contingency 

Plan. The estimated excess chemical 

carcinogenic risk to adults ranged from 

1 × 10 ¥10 for ingestion of surface water 

to 2 × 10 ¥6 for ingestion of sediment. 

The excess carcinogenic risk from 

radionuclides ranged from 5 × 10 ¥11 for 

ingestion of surface water to 8 × 10 ¥10

for ingestion of fish. Chronic hazard 

index values for children ranged from 

0.00003 for ingestion of surface water to 

0.01 for ingestion of fish and for dermal 

exposure to sediment. 

Based on all of the site data, EPA 

concluded that the potential for 

ecological risks contributed by the 

former AMTL facility are 

indistinguishable from the 

anthropogenic urban background 

conditions that characterize the Lower 

Charles River Basin. EPA considered (1) 

the weight assigned to each 

measurement endpoint; (2) the 

magnitude of the response observed in 

each measurement endpoint; and (3) the 

summation of the degree of agreement 

among the outcomes of each 

measurement endpoint. There are 

elevated levels of many constituents 

(and a potential for ecological risk) 

present in all four reaches and the 

majority of these compounds are present 

at concentrations consistent with 

upstream reference locations. In general, 

the potential for ecological risk to 

benthic invertebrates was found to be 

low to moderate, with an even lower 

potential risk to finfish and vertebrate 

wildlife, respectively. 

A No Further Action ROD was signed 

for OU2 because of consistency of the 

AMTL site conditions with urban 

background and the similar potential for 

ecological risks across sampling reaches. 

OU1, OU2, and OU3 ROD Findings 

OU1 ROD Findings 

On September 26, 1996, the Army and 

EPA signed a Record of Decision 

documenting the remedial action 

selected for OU1. The MADEP 

concurred. The major components 

included: 

• Excavation of areas with 

contaminated soils above cleanup goals; 

• Confirmatory soil sampling after 

contaminated soil removal; 

• Off-site landfill disposal or reuse of 

the excavated soil; 

• Backfilling with clean soils; 

• Institutional controls to limit future 

use and to restrict site access; and 

• Five-year reviews. 

Two Explanations of Significant 

Difference (ESD) were signed for this 

OU. The first ESD addressed Lot 1 and 

was signed on January 12, 1998. The 

second ESD addressed the Charles River 

Park and was signed on June 7, 2001. 

Both ESDs changed the subsurface PAH 

cleanup levels to levels protective of 

construction workers. The revised PAH 

cleanup goals were applied at Areas B, 

E, G, and L4 with the first ESD. These 

cleanup goals were also applied to the 

Charles River Park (Zone 5: Areas M, N, 

O, P, and Q) with the second ESD. 

OU2 ROD Findings 

A No Further Action ROD was signed 

on September 29, 2005 because the 

potential for risks contributed by the 

former AMTL facility were 

indistinguishable from urban 

background conditions. MADEP 

concurred. 

OU3 ROD Findings 

The ROD for OU3 was signed on July 

28, 1996. The major components 

include: 

• Excavation of areas with 

contaminated soils that were above 

cleanup goals; 

• Confirmatory soil sampling within 

excavations after contaminated soil 

removal; 

• Off-site landfill disposal or reuse of 

the excavated soil; 

• Backfilling of clean fill soils into 

the excavations. 

There are no institutional controls in 

place that are applicable to OU3. The 

MADEP concurred. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_1
55324 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Response Actions for OU1 and OU3 

OU1 Remedial Action 

Soil clean-up goals were established 

in the ROD for different zones at AMTL 

based on their intended future use. The 

clean-up goals were developed to allow 

a mix of future uses at the site, 

including residential, commercial, and 

recreational scenarios. The only 

exception was for the contaminants of 

concern and for the Zone 3 where the 

residential cleanup level was slightly 

higher than the ecologically protective 

level for chlordane. In addition, during 

remediation and excavation activities, 

the Army and regulators determined 

that a construction worker scenario was 

a more realistic and appropriate 

exposure scenario for soils at a depth 

greater than one foot below ground 

surface (bgs) at Zones 1 and 2. Because 

the Baseline Risk Assessment did not 

include the construction worker 

exposure scenario, additional risk 

assessment work was performed. The 

construction worker exposure scenario 

recognized that periodic maintenance 

and/or installation of subsurface 

utilities/structures would be required in 

the future. In general, the construction 

worker exposure scenario differs from 

the commercial exposure scenario by 

evaluating risks from contaminated soils 

below one foot bgs using an exposure 

duration that mimics the potential need 

to perform periodic subsurface utility 

work. The top one foot of soil meets the 

appropriate risk-based clean-up goals 

and no changes were made to the 

cleanup goals in the surface soils. In 

addition, the subsurface soil 

construction worker exposure scenario 

is recognized as an appropriate risk 

scenario for the public benefit reuse 

areas (Zone 4) because the open space 

user will not likely excavate below one 

foot and will be protected by the one 

foot of soil meeting its risk-based cleanup goals. The Revised clean-up goals 

were documented in an ESD, dated 

January 12, 1998. Remedial action 

objectives remained the same—mitigate 

the risks to human health and the 

environment posed by direct contact 

with and incidental ingestion of 

contaminated soils. The revised cleanup 

goals were applied at Areas B, E, G, J, 

and L. The confirmation samples taken 

before the revision of the clean-up goals 

indicated that the soils below one foot 

met these goals and the excavations 

were considered complete. 

Remedial Action for the northern 

zone of the AMTL site was started on 

November 20, 1996, and completed on 

July 27, 1998. All soils were disposed 

off-site in accordance with state and 

federal requirements. Implementation of 

the required Institutional Controls took 

place during the transfer. 

In 1997, the Army began remedial 

activities within the Charles River Park 

parcel. Two areas (Areas N & O) within 

the 11-acre Park parcel were remediated 

but work in the remainder of the Park 

was suspended. The excavation 

volumes required to achieve soil cleanup levels specified in the ROD were 

significantly larger than previously 

estimated. This resulted in a significant 

potential increase in estimated costs of 

the remedy for the Charles River Park 

parcel. 

The Army applied the revised 

cleanup goals (previously documented 

in the January 1998 ESD) to the Charles 

River Park parcel at elevations greater 

two foot bgs level since several areas 

required the removal of the top two feet 

of soil in order to address elevated 

ecological risks. This change was 

documented in an ESD dated June 7, 

2001. 

Riverbank excavations at areas P, Q, 

and M were terminated at two feet bgs 

since no revised clean-up goals were 

exceeded. A terraced wetland was 

constructed in Areas P and Q to provide 

protection from boat wakes and winddriven waves. A breakwater structure 

was constructed at the toe of the bank. 

Vegetated plugs, shrubs, and trees were 

planted above the breakwater and 

erosion matting was placed on the 

slope. 

The entire Charles River Park zone 

was mulched, seeded, and fertilized. 

Remedial Action for the Charles River 

Park zone was completed on December 

22, 2003. All soils were disposed off-site 

in accordance with state and Federal 

requirements. Implementation of 

Institutional Controls for this zone took 

place during the transfer process. 

In August 1998, 36.5 acres were 

transferred from the ownership of the 

U.S. Army. The Watertown Arsenal 

Development Corporation (WADC) 

acquired 29.5 acres of the site and the 

Town of Watertown took ownership of 

7 acres. In March 2005, the remaining 

11 acres of the site, the Charles River 

Park parcel, were transferred from the 

Army to the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, Department of 

Conservation and Recreation (DCR). At 

the time of each transfer, the Army 

issued a Grant of Environmental 

Restriction and Easement for each 

appropriate zone of the AMTL Site to 

the MADEP. The purpose of the Grants 

is to provide a mechanism for the 

creation and enforcement of the 

necessary land use controls as required 

by the CERCLA RODs for the site (July 

and September 1996). The WADC and 

Town of Watertown parcels were 

deleted from the NPL through the 

partial deletion process on November 

22, 1999. 

The Charles River Park parcel is the 

subject of the second grant and this 

deletion process. Although the park was 

site property, it has been managed by 

the DCR since the 1920’s under a right 

of way (ROW) from the Army. Since 

then, the land has been maintained as 

recreational space and a portion as a 

road. The ROW gave the right to use the 

property for a park, to construct 

improvements on the property that are 

reasonably related to park purpose, and 

to care for and manage the property. The 

ROW also gave the DCR police 

jurisdiction of the property. In 1948, the 

DCR’s predecessor, Metropolitan 

District Commission, leased 

approximately two acres of the 

riverfront property to the Watertown 

Yacht Club for the hauling and storage 

of boats. A clubhouse and a three-bay 

maintenance garage with a boat winch 

currently occupy the area not used to 

store boats. The DCR and the club are 

currently negotiating a permit to 

continue boating operations at the site. 

The Army submitted the Final Project 

Close-Out Reports (dated May 1998 and 

March 2002, respectively) and they were 

approved by both EPA and 

Massachusetts DEP. The joint EPA and 

MADEP inspection required by the NCP 

pursuant to 40 CFR 300.515(g) was 

conducted on June 23, 2003. As a result 

of the inspection, EPA determined that 

the remedy was ‘‘operational and 

functional’’ under 40 CFR 300.435(f)(2). 

OU3 Remedial Action 

Remedial Action (RA) for Area I 

started on August 26, 1996, and was 

completed on January 10, 1997. The 

Final Project Close-Out Report 

(December 1996) was approved by EPA 

and Massachusetts DEP. All soils were 

disposed off-site in accordance with 

state and Federal requirements. No 

institutional controls were needed as 

the ROD specified clean-up goals (Zone 

3) were protective of residential 

exposure to soils. 

Operation and Maintenance Activities 

The Army is responsible for 

conducting annual inspections of the 

institutional controls and ensuring that 

erosion control and bank stabilization 

project remains effective over the longterm. 

Five-Year Reviews 

CERCLA requires a five-year review of 

all sites with hazardous substances 

remaining above health-based levels for 

unrestricted use of the site. Since 

hazardous substances will remain onVerDate Aug<31>2005 16:03 Sep 21, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\22SER1.SGM 22SER1

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 55325 

site above levels allowing unlimited use 

and unrestricted exposure, a statutory 

five-year review will be conducted by 

the Army pursuant to CERCLA section 

121(c) and as provided in OSWER 

Directive 9355.7–03B–P, Comprehensive 

Five-Year Review Guidance. 

The five-year review process will 

evaluate whether human health and the 

environment remain protected by the 

remedies. The first five-year review was 

performed in 2001 and documented in 

March 2002 by the Army. The Army 

completed its second five-year review in 

March 2006. EPA and MADEP 

concurred with the Army’s assessment 

that the remedies were protective of 

human health and the environment. For 

future five-year reviews, EPA will 

review the Army’s annual reports and 

conduct a five-year review inspection. 

The Army will provide the next fiveyear review in March 2011. 

The first 5-year review, dated March 

7, 2002 concluded: 

• For OU1, the remedy was 

determined to be protective of human 

health and the environment as long as 

a limited amount of soil in Area E 

exceeding the applicable cleanup goals 

was removed. The soils were since 

excavated at Area E, shipped offsite, and 

used as landfill daily cover. All 

confirmation samples met the ROD 

criteria. The excavation was backfilled 

with clean soils and new benchmarks 

were installed to identify the area. 

• The protectiveness of OU2 was not 

determined because the remedy had not 

yet been chosen. 

• For OU3, the remedy was 

determined to be protective of human 

health and the environment. 

Restricted area Inspection description Frequency 

Charles River Park Open Area ............... Inspect to determine that the use does not allow residential, daycare or school 

activities except those incidental to recreational park activities.

Annually in June. 

Inspect area to ensure no excavation, drilling or otherwise disturbance of the 

soils located two feet or more below surface grade have occurred.

Inspect benchmarks for eroded areas and reduction in grade and repair as necessary. Ensure that benchmarks remain visible.

Breakwater Treatment Inspection: 

• Inspect rock toe for separation and/or settlement.

• Inspect coir fascine for proper anchoring.

• Inspect for scour between plant carpets and coir fascine.

Charles River Park Wooded Area .......... Inspect to ensure use does not allow residential, daycare, or school activities 

except those activities incidental to recreational park activities.

Annually in June. 

Watertown Yacht Club Open Area ......... Inspect to ensure use does not allow residential, daycare, or school activities 

except those activities incidental to recreational park activities.

Annually in June. 

Inspect benchmarks for eroded areas or reduced grade and repair as necessary. Ensure that benchmarks remain visible.

Inspect area to ensure no excavation, drilling or otherwise disturbance of the 

soils located two feet or more below surface grade have occurred.

Structures at the Watertown Yacht Club Inspect to ensure use does not allow residential, daycare, or school activities 

except those activities incidental to recreational park activities.

Annually in June. 

Inspect area to ensure no excavation, drilling or disturbance of the soils below 

the building foundations and slabs have occurred.

Inspect area to ensure no excavation, drilling or disturbance of the building 

foundations and slabs in a manner that would likely result in human contact 

with underlying soils has occurred.

North Beacon Street ............................... Inspect to ensure use does not allow residential, daycare, or school activities 

except those activities incidental to recreational park activities.

Annually in June. 

Inspect area to ensure no disturbance of the roadway or sidewalk pavement 

that would compromise their integrity or would be likely to result in human 

contact with the underlying soils has occurred.

North Beacon Street Wooded Area ........ Inspect to ensure use is restricted to no residential, daycare, or school activities 

except those activities incidental to recreational park activities.

Annually in June. 

Buildings: 142, 244, 245, & 111 ............. Inspect to ensure use does not allow residential, daycare or school uses .......... Annually in June. 

Inspect to ensure that no transportation, disposal, or deposition of soils from 

within the parcel occurs, unless in compliance with the Soil Management 

Protocol set forth in Paragraph 4 of the Grant.

Inspect area to ensure no excavation, drilling or otherwise disturbance of the 

building foundations and that would likely result in human contact with underlying soils has occurred.

Areas: L4, E, B & G ................................ Inspect to ensure use does not allow residential, daycare or school (children 

under 18 years old), hotel, motel, community center (children under 18 years 

old), and/or recreational/activities uses.

Annually in June. 

Inspect benchmarks for eroded areas and reduction in grade and repair as necessary. Ensure that benchmarks remain visible.

Inspect to determine no soils, located at a depth of one foot or more below the 

surface grade, were removed unless disposed as required in the Grant.

Buildings: 97, 60, 652, & 312 ................. Inspect to ensure use does not allow residential, daycare or school (for children

under 18 years of age), hotel, motel, community center (for children under 18 

years of age), and/or recreational uses or activities uses.

Annually in June. 

Inspect to determine that no transportation, disposal, or deposition of soils from 

within the parcel occurs, unless in compliance with the Soil Management 

Protocol set forth in Paragraph 4 of the Grant.

Inspect area to ensure no excavation, drilling or otherwise disturbance of the 

building foundations and slabs in a manner that would likely result in human 

contact with underlying soils have occurred.


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_1
55326 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 184 / Friday, September 22, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

Restricted area Inspection description Frequency 

Building 39 .............................................. Inspect to ensure that use does not allow residential, daycare or school (children under 18 years old), hotel, motel, community center (children under 18 

years old), and/or recreational uses or activities uses.

Annually in June. 

Buildings 131, 117, & 313–S .................. Inspect area to ensure no excavation, drilling or otherwise disturbance of the 

building foundations and slabs that would likely result in human contact with 

underlying soils have occurred.

Annually in June. 

The second five-year review, 

completed in March 2006, concluded 

that the remedy at OU1 (the only site 

where hazardous materials remain onsite) is protective of human health and 

the environment in the short-term 

because there is no evidence of 

exposure. However, there was concern 

that some bank erosion occurred along 

the Charles River adjacent to Charles 

River Park (in areas where the Army 

was not required to remediate). In order 

for the remedy to remain protective in 

the long term, the Army must stabilize 

the riverbank adjacent to Areas P and Q 

before the next five-year review. While 

the integrity of the two-foot soil 

coverage required by the ROD and ESD 

remains intact along the riverbanks, the 

Army will undertake preventive 

measures to ensure long-term site 

integrity. This work began in September 

2006 and is expected to be completed 

before the end of the year. 

Community Involvement 

In addition to the regular community 

meetings discussed below, community 

relations activities for the Army 

Materials Testing Laboratory NPL Site 

have included the following: 

development of a community relations 

plan, public meetings and site tours 

during the RI and remedy selection 

process, public comment periods on 

proposed plans, and publication and 

distribution of fact sheets updating the 

status of site cleanup. 

In 1989, the Army established a 

Technical Review Committee (TRC) to 

enhance community involvement. In 

1993 the TRC transitioned into a 

Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). The 

purpose of the TRC and RAB was to 

serve as a forum where representatives 

of the community, regulators, and the 

Army could discuss and exchange 

information on environmental cleanup 

issues and progress at the Site. The TRC 

and RAB provided an opportunity for 

stakeholders to participate in the 

decision-making process by reviewing 

and commenting on documents and 

proposed remedial actions. Through the 

TRC and RAB, cleanup decisions were 

discussed and approved. 

During fiscal year 2006, a fact sheet 

that discussed the intention to delete 

the site from the NPL was distributed to 

the RAB. EPA will also announce the 

deletion of the Site from the NPL once 

the deletion has been completed with 

fact sheet and public notice. 

V. Deletion Action 

EPA, with concurrence from the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has 

determined that all appropriate 

responses under CERCLA have been 

completed, and that no further response 

actions under CERCLA are necessary. 

Therefore, EPA is deleting the Site from 

the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be non-controversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without earlier publication of 

a notice of intent to delete. This action 

will become effective November 21, 

2006 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by October 23, 2006 or a 

parallel notice of intent to delete is 

published in the Proposed Rule section 

of today’s Federal Register. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

withdraw this direct final notice of 

deletion before the effective date of the 

deletion and it will not take effect. EPA 

will respond to comments, as 

appropriate, and continue with the 

traditional deletion process on the basis 

of the notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. If EPA receives no adverse 

comment(s), this deletion will become 

effective November 21, 2006. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: September 12, 2006. 

Robert W. Varney, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA—New 

England. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp.; p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Appendix B—[Amended] 

■ 2. Table 2 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing the entry for 

‘‘Materials Technology Laboratory (US 

ARMY), Watertown, MA.’’

[FR Doc. 06–7966 Filed 9–21–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 403, 416, 418, 460, 482, 

483, and 485 

[CMS–3145–F] 

RIN 0938–AN36 

Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Fire 

Safety Requirements for Certain Health 

Care Facilities; Amendment 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule adopts the 

substance of the April 15, 2004 tentative 

interim amendment (TIA) 00–1 (101), 

Alcohol Based Hand Rub Solutions, an 

amendment to the 2000 edition of the 

Life Safety Code, published by the 

National Fire Protection Association 

(NFPA). This amendment allows certain 

health care facilities to place alcoholbased hand rub dispensers in egress 

corridors under specified conditions. 

This final rule also requires that nursing 

facilities at least install battery-operated 

single station smoke alarms in resident 

rooms and common areas if they are not 

fully sprinklered or they do not have 

system-based smoke detectors in those 

areas. Finally, this final rule confirms as 

final the provisions of the March 25, 

2005 interim final rule with changes 

and responds to public comments on 

that rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: These regulations 

are effective on October 23, 2006. The 

incorporation by reference of certain 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_1